Jump to content

Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Why show user scores on other content and explaining the discrepancy and not on the rings of power?

I've seen on wikipedia pages on other movies/shows where the audience score from both metacritic and rotten tomateos are shown under veiwership and review topics. However only showing the critic reviews for the Rings of Power implies that the show is generally seen as favorable even though their is a clear divide between the two. Terps90 (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles using user scores are incorrect and not an example for us to follow here. The FAQs at the top of this page cover why we do not use them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential episode moves

FYI for those watching this page, I have started move discussions for some of the episode articles that you may be interested in contributing to:

Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Re-posting my questions from your talk page, though I'm not sure why you refused to answer there. This is about your actions as they relate to television articles in general rather than this article specifically. Is there a discussion about film and television genres that led to you unlinking some of them but not others? It seems quite odd to me that you would do it at all, but also so inconsistently. Is the action genre more common a term than drama? And you unlinked fantasy in the lead but not in the infobox? If there hasn't been a discussion about this and you are expecting to make similar edits to other television articles then I think this is something that should be raised at WT:TV or MOS:TV so there is some consensus on how to go about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I just ran a script and after all these years you're the fist one to have issues with the outcome. Have it your way. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect name associated to photo

That is not Cynthia Adai-Robinson, it's Nazanin Boniadi. 70.54.83.220 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

In the Cast section, a photo is incorrectly associated to Cynthia Addai-Robinson when it is actually a photo of Nazanin Boniadi. 70.54.83.220 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have notified the uploader about making this correction. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Critical response wording

For anyone watching this page who is not watching The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 2, there is currently a discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 2#Reception wording that could impact this article. The intention is to come to a consensus on the wording for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic data across the Rings of Power articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

2A02 IP address

@Adamstom.97, @Dumuzid, what needs to be done about the IP user above? I feel like they have been given substantially more grace beyond the recommended process and have failed to escape violations of WP:NOTFORUM. TNstingray (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Take this to WP:ANI and have the IP blocked from this page as continued disruption and drama mongering. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
FlightTime is certainly right that it could be taken to ANI, but I tend to be of the "starve them of oxygen" school of thought. Let people rant on the talk page and they tend to tire themselves out. So, personally I don't think any action is really needed, but I also recognize that I am far more passive than most in situations like this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
StingRay: Yes, because I'm just a stupid IP you haven't even addressed me personally once and at first not hid, but undid anything I wrote. There is a reason I am not using my account when commenting on topics like this, exactly because of the actions you showed in this thread.
Is anything I wrote up there factually untrue? ARE you paid by Amazon? Or are you feeling personally attacked because what I wrote hits the nail on the head?
This is not a forum, correct, addressing problematic behaviours like "protecting" readers from factually and multi sourced information, just because you don't agree with the person who wrote it is a problem deeply rooted in Wikipedia. Classic journalism is onesided and loosing relevancy fast - as long as Wikipedia doesn't address this and allows other forms of sources as long as they are proofable it will loose relevancy too.
You may say: "If you disagree don't edit", but I don't want Wikipedia to die, I want it to face reality and adapt.
I fully expect for you to force the deletion of my very reservedly toned answer because you don't like what it says. Go ahead, you will only proof anything I wrote to be factually correct.
And to Dumuzid: Your answer is a textbook example of what I wrote up there, you feel so above this lowly "disruptor" that you think ignoring it is the correct approach.
At least you try to refrain from suppresing measures and I commend you for that, albeit I know that will not impress you in the slightest. If I really am wrong and am only a "small minority" your "starving of oxygen" approach is indeed the most viable. I don't think I'm in the "small minority", though. There is a reason this topic comes up again and again. Only time will tell on this one, though. 2A02:908:190:AF80:B8E7:D520:8BCA:5333 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't feel "above" you in any way, shape, or form. I just believe in Wikipedia and decision making by consensus. You're entitled to say whatever you like (subject to WP:NPA, WP:NOTFORUM, etc.). I don't think you currently have a consensus for your changes, so you would not be entitled to change the article -- which hasn't been a problem I have seen. If you're able to gain consensus, then you obviously are entitled to make those changes, and even if I think they're for the worse, I'd be fine with them. You've failed to persuade me thus far, but that doesn't mean you won't sway others. Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I have made a submission at ANI. Thanks all. I hoped the oxygen approach would work because I like to save my time and breath for editors willing to communicate and uphold WP policy, and I simply can't stand this show (the second season is so far worse than the first for me). TNstingray (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course I won't have a consensus. You (not you personally - editors and administrators) have vetted the system for years to make sure that won't happen. There is a reason most simply abandoned editing. Changes were proposed for years to change it more towards the actual center, but they all get denied. They simply gave up and left. That is not a win. You won't see tries to change the article, because anyone who actually wants to get the POV out will swiftly be dealt with. As Stingray here proves by opening an ANI as expected.
Well, let's meet under a new IP and hopefully changed conditions sometime in the future. 2A02:908:190:AF80:B8E7:D520:8BCA:5333 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am sure no one will use the site you describe and will instead find superior alternatives. Have a good one. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A possible conflict of interest?

Reading the page itself and the discussion segments here, it doesn't seem impossible to me that Amazon might've payed the editors or made a "donation" to Wikipedia so that the data on incredibly negative reactions of the viewership wouldn't be mentioned. None of the arguments stated are strong enough to justify not mentioning the incredible uproar generated in the public, not even once, not with even a single word. And it is well known Amazon is not a stranger to using tricks such as this. There MUST be at the very least a passing reference to the massive negative reactions by the audience. Not in some other article which the reader is very unlikely to visit, but exactly here. I can't for the life of me find another explanation for such a vehement refusal to mention it. Why would the editors care so much in this particular case if they didn't have a personal stake in it. What is happening here is horrible. 79.106.135.10 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The "missing" information you are talking about is discussed, in great detail, at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 1. A discussion about whether/how to summarise those details at this article can already be found above at #Opportunity for User:Skcin7 to state their case. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Have you actually read that section? There is a mention that "some parts" of the viewership didn't like it, directly followed by relativations of why thos parts can be dismissed as irrelevant.
That is like describing the tip of an iceberg with not mentioning that this only resembles less than a seventh of the whole thing, and furthermore it is not dangerous because it is not in a shipping lane. 2A02:908:190:AF80:B8E7:D520:8BCA:5333 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic WP:NOTFORUM discussion
Deleting facts is the political statement. But I haven't expected anything less. There is a reason why I don't even try to edit articles like this one. Amazon didn't pay the authors - that much can be assumed as a given.
Galadriel said it best: “Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!”
The difference between her and people like the ones who try to delete any wrongthink is, that she was acutely aware that tyranny is always bad, especially if you think you are doing the right thing. 2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
adamstom97, stop abusing WP:NOTFORUM. He accuses you of being a paid shill. I say he is wrong and why.
If you disagree state why (I know you do) but stop thinking that only you knows what is right.
Tolkien's lessons are more important than ever, and the persons who actually need to learn them are putting their fingers in their ears and sing childrens songs. 2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
And now TNStingRay butts in with his personal opinion.
Yes, I currently am not interessted in sourcing changes to NPOV-articles because you will reject well researched and sourced articles because you say they were published on the wrong news site while simultaniously repeating the same few sites that circle reference each other without any sources as the holy truth.
Some of them being downsized to 4 employees, all of them well sourced activists, yet their articles are gospel.
I do want to work on Wikipedia, but I will not shill for either side. Currently it is pretty obvious that there are parts of WikiEN that are not neutral and censoring any discord with a wall off Wiki-rules that are not or only partly applicable while mantraing themselves into believing they are the good guys. 2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe take a break and enjoy a frozen treat or something? Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I would have after the first comment and I will still do. Thanks for your concern. ;)
I will, however, not stand by while a TALK page for an at least highly controversial topic gets censored.
If you think I'm wrong, give me a qualified answer. If you think I'm not worth your time ignore me.
But never try to unceremoniously censor observable facts because they are inconvenient to you.
This article is hihly NPOV because the sources that are allowed are highly NPOV, petition for other sources will get shot down because the people controlling the sources list are highly NPOV.
There is a reason why Galadriels rejection of the one ring is a really good analogy to your usage of Wikipedia... 2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. However, these should be used for questions of reasonable academic interest; Wikipedia does not serve as a technical help line or customer support for products or companies that have articles.
You are not being censored. That's not what censorship means. You're agreeing to use a platform, then after failing to follow the guidelines of the platform and facing the consequences, you get mad. You are absolutely correct in saying this article is NPOV (neutral point of view), so I don't see what the problem is since we all agree with you. TNstingray (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I misused NPOV and POV, of course this article (as any other on current day misfires like The Acolyte) is highly POV. My first answer however did directly address the claim that you, dumuzuid and adamstom are paid shills.
I accept that my first comment was deleted, as that was indeed political. The rest of this thing is on you, though. Proving my point along the way. I know that you will not agree with me, decades of indoctrination do that to people and I know that you can't help yourself as you won't even recognize that you are indoctrinated. You truly believe what you are doing is the right thing.
If you want to "hide" this exchange, go ahead. I will answer the OP directly once again, though. Respectfully keep your hands of that one. 2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
It will never cease to amaze me that the articles for which I receive the most vituperation are the things I care about the absolute least. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, adam, of course you will set this one. At least you didn't delete it this time. But you hid to much ;) 2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I see how you are coming to this conclusion, but I think you are wrong.
We had the "superfans" event of streamers on Youtube who were paid to promote the show and never showed any interest in Tolkien before or ever since. Those were paid, but not the authors of Wikipedia.
This article is obviously POV, because the allowed sources are POV - why is a story with years in the making, and changing that fact is by now nigh impossible.
Most of the persons still editing here truly believe that they are in possesion of "the truth" and that they are doing the only right thing and everybody who thinks differently must be educated until they inevitably see the light, as their different opinion is simply based on missing knowledge.
So no, there are no evil intentions behind the state of this article. Good will and absolute conviction are sufficent as an explanation. Occam's and Hanlon's razors are your friend. ;) 2A02:908:190:AF80:F959:9137:2A15:A2DA (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget Hitchen's razor.84.54.70.119 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Only problem is that there is ample empirical evidence for my claim. Obviously not on Wikipedia itself. But it exists, not least by the cofounder of Wikipedia himself. [1][2][3]
Does it make my claims unrefutably true? Of course not. But the knee-jerk reaction of certain editors should make you at least raise your eyebrows a bit. 2A02:908:190:AF80:B172:5C1B:315F:F4D5 (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. The very deepest of conspiracies on the page of...*checks notes*-- a middling Lord of the Rings fanfiction series. That totally checks out and is not a figment of anyone's imagination. Dumuzid (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that Rings of Power is not the place that this should be discussed. I'm rather shocked that it wasn't deleted. I honestly expected an admin to kill it ourtight.
Then, were can we have an actual discussion about this topic that will not get shot down on the grounds of irrelevancy and/or convoluted conspiracy theory accusations, because you think this "accusations" are so outright ridicoulus that every second spent thinking about them is a waste of time? 2A02:908:190:AF80:B172:5C1B:315F:F4D5 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Opportunity for User:Skcin7 to state their case

@Skcin7. You can state your case here, and we can discuss how to properly include the information you are wanting to include. Please consider reading through the blue links under "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this page before doing so. Thanks. TNstingray (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

well, let me bring some consensus possibilities to weight.
Right now this area is only stating the professional critics view and not the audience critic view on the same website about the same show. There we have over 25.000+ ratings with a score of 38%.
Maybe it could be written:
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a Score of 83% approval by critics for the first season based on 489 reviews in contrast to the Audience score of more than 25.000 ratings and a score of 38% approval.
same for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power_season_1#Reception
--2003:DF:A72F:9F00:C11B:2E24:1152:C660 (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
MOS:TVRECEPTION. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
And WP:USERGEN. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Thx for this link.
To quote the rule: "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews;" While it is correct, that we shouldnt mention the user reviews by these rules, it is not impossible to mention the contrast to these public user views to the prof. score.
Maybe it could be written:
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a Score of 83% approval by critics for the first season based on 489 reviews in strong contrast to the negative Audience score. ErikWar19 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I think in context the bit you quote above is about the ratio of positive critical reviews to negative. Later in the section, it also says: do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. If you can find this sort of thing mentioned in a reliable source, then possibly. But as written I would object to your sentence as being too close to WP:SYNTH. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
We can't just say that the audience score is negative as that implies that we think it is a reliable measure of the series' audience. The point of WP:USERG is that they are not reliable. What we can do is include commentary from reliable sources discussing the audience score if they think it is noteworthy, which we do already have at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 1#Audience response. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Why not summarize that section in a "Season 1 reception" here with a {Main article} link to that? Especially as the show doesn't have a second season yet AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
We should at some point, though it is tricky to cut down on what we have while maintaining all the points being made there. It may be easier to discuss this article in a month or two when the second season is out and we can compare the responses to both seasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring all policy , if someone is coming to a "Reception" section about a show about a subject with a pretty strong following on a WP article , it is likely that they are also a fan of that subject and the opinion of fans would matter a lot to them . It not being mentioned at all is dumb (which is probably why this has been mentioned lots of times in this talk page but has been refused by the same group of experienced editors each time) AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime there is a pretty obvious "Reception of season 1" link that takes readers directly to all the details. We aren't trying to hide anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@AlexBobCharles "It not being mentioned at all is dumb" - what about the "See also: Reception of season 1" link right below the Reception header? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Now that season 2 has debuted and we have early reception information for it, I have had a go at better summarising the reception to both seasons in this article. Yes, including adding a very brief audience response section. The intention is still for all of the details to be at the season articles and for this article to just give a high-level summary of both. Hopefully this satisfies the editors who have been asking for such a section to be added. If there are any concerns about the latest change then I am happy to continue the discussion here. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

To Change the Main Image

Now that the second season of the Rings of Power has begun airing, I wonder if the main image of this page should be changed to the title card as it currently appears. I suggest this be done if only due to the fact that the newer title is much better looking than the previous one. Aatmik Dutta (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:TVIMAGE, we don't usually update the image each time the series' credits change. The article needs to reflect the whole history of the show and at the moment the new title card has only been used in two episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I see.
But I, and I'm sure many other enjoyers of the show, would much rather have the newer title card be representative of the entire show than the one used in S1. Aatmik Dutta (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we don't make decisions based on what enjoyers of the show would rather have. You either need better reasoning for this change or a lot more support from other editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I just want to mildly protest that there's really no policy reason why the main image couldn't be changed to reflect the new season--but, as you say, it would require a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. Aatmik Dutta (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Approach to the cast lists

Background and proposal

Hi all, I have been thinking about whether we need to change our approach to the cast lists for this series since the second season started airing with some differences in how actors are credited compared to the first season. I thought it best to write out everything I have been considering and post it all here to see if anyone else has any opinions on the best way forward.

Some general context: Usually for television articles, per MOS:TVCAST, we would expect to see: a list of main/starring/series regular cast members from all seasons at this article; those from the first season at the S1 article along with any recurring or otherwise noteworthy guest stars from those episodes; the same at the S2 article; and the cast list in the infobox of each episode article would have a list of the guest stars from that episode. However, this series does not credit any actors as main/guest/co-star/etc. A similar situation has happened with the MCU shows on Disney+ and a unique approach was decided on for those articles that is detailed at WP:MCUTVCAST. It relies on the fact that some actors are credited in the main titles sequence and equates those to starring cast members and all other actors to traditional guest stars.

Crediting details for the first season: Each episode has one cast list in the end credits that lists all of the episode's actors in order of appearance. The showrunners have mentioned in interviews that there are 22 series regulars in the season, but no actors are credited as such onscreen. This Deadline article from just before the season was released has a list of 23 cast members which line up with the 23 character posters that were released for the season. Those posters can be seen on Amazon's press site under 'Key Art'; note that Joseph Mawle is listed in the Deadline article but the poster for his character is not labeled on the press site like all the others, presumably because he left the series before the first season was released and has since been recast for the second season. 38 cast members, including those 23 in the Deadline article, were officially announced by Amazon during the casting process for the show: 1 2 3. Some of those actors only have small roles in the first episode but others have recurring roles throughout the season.

The current approach, developed for the first season: The full cast list for each episode, minus any minor background characters that do not have a name (i.e. "X as a Southlander", "X as a warrior Orc"), are listed in the infobox of each episode article in order of appearance per the credits. The S1 article lists all 38 of the officially announced cast members plus Ken Blackburn—the one actor in the season not announced by Amazon who plays a character from Tolkien's lore—in order of appearance per the credits. This article lists all 23 cast members from the Deadline article in order of appearance per the credits.

Crediting details for the second season: Firstly, Amazon officially announced 18 new "recurring" cast members for the season, 1 2 3. Three noteworthy guests were also announced before the season premiered (Jim Broadbent, Olivia Williams, and Jack Lowden). Each episode lists the actors in the end credits, but with a different format from the first season. While there are still no actors in the opening title sequence, there is now a list of actors that get billed similar to the main-on-end sequence in a film before the actual cast list is shown. For example, the first episode of S2 gives single billing on screen—in order of appearance—to Charlie Vickers, Morfydd Clark, Robert Aramayo, Benjamin Walker, Daniel Weyman, Ciaran Hinds, Markella Kavenagh, Megan Richards, and Charles Edwards (all members of the 23 actor list that we currently have at this article, except for Hinds who was announced as a new recurring cast member for S2). There is then a series of names that are grouped together, like with supporting characters in a film: Jack Lowden, Ben Daniels, Sam Hazeldine, Nicholas Woodeson, Geoff Morrell, and Amelia Kenworthy (also in order of appearance and all announced as new recurring cast members for S2 except for Lowden, as mentioned, and Morrell who returned for the episode from S1). Finally there is the actual cast list which includes all the other actors in the episode, in order of appearance, including Zates Atour who is one of the new recurring cast members.

Reconsidering the current approach: As the new cast members were announced for S2, I expected that we would use the same approach as with S1: list the full episode cast list at each episode article, list all the pre-announced cast members (plus those returning from S1) at the S2 article, and only update the list at this article if we get something definitive along the lines of the Deadline article and characters posters for S1 (so far we have not). And that is what has been done currently. However, the change in onscreen credits for S2 is making me think that we need to reconsider this approach, because it certainly appears that there is a main billing list, a supporting billing list, and then an additional cast list that includes some noteworthy actors but not many. It may make sense to use an approach similar to WP:MCUTVCAST where we treat those with single billing as series regulars, those in the grouped section as guest stars, and those in the end credits list as co-stars who would only be included if found noteworthy by reliable sources. The main thing making me hesitate is that the cast members who Amazon announced as "recurring" are spread throughout all three groups, plus some of the 23 actors that we have in this article are included in the supporting list for S2 rather than the main. I am also concerned about applying the typical TV terms of "Main", "Recurring", and "Guest" where they are not supported by the series or reliable sources. But I do think a change could be warranted.

Proposal for a new approach: I think this balances the different crediting styles of each season and what our reliable sources cover.

  • This article would list the 22 cast members credited on Amazon's press site (all 23 from the Deadline article minus Mawle) plus Hinds, Peter Mullan, and any other cast member that gets single billing in S2
  • The S1 article would have two cast lists: "Starring", which covers the 22 cast members; and "Supporting", which includes all the other pre-announced cast members plus actors who recur in 3+ episodes
  • The S2 article would have three cast lists: "Starring", which covers the cast members who get single billing; "Supporting", which covers the cast members who get grouped billing; and "Other" (open to alternative suggestions for this heading), which includes any of the end credits actors that are found noteworthy either by being in the pre-season announcements, playing a Tolkien character, or recurring in 3+ episodes
  • The actors listed at this article would be removed from the infobox of each episode article just as a series regular is not expected to be in the infobox for a traditional show's episode article

I have mocked-up what the new lists at the season articles would be in my sandbox. The S2 section is based on the credits through episode 204 and will likely expand as the rest of the season is released.

- adamstom97 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I am hoping to get opinions on whether others feel a change is unnecessary, my new proposal is the way to go, or some other alternative. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm not a watcher of this series, but everything you laid out sound reasonable to consider. Sounds like you want to take an approach similar to The Crown (see say The Crown season 2 as a season example). That series had a large main cast list credited in the opening credits, though certain episodes had single, "featured" guests credited there, so the articles here have been formatted as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support adamstom97's proposal, since it seems structured, logical, and provides for each system, separating them appropriately. there is probably no catch-all sysetm for both season 1 & 2, so this is the best proposal for this so far. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to those who responded above. As we are days away from the second season ending and interest in the articles likely dropping off for the next few years, I am going to go ahead and implement my proposal now in case that triggers any more feedback. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have now made these changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Pretty good modification. Adar seems to be on odd ommision.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I assume he would have been considered a starring cast member if Mawle wasn't recast based on how things were looking in the lead-up to season 1, but at this point we have Mawle's name being left off Amazon's press site and Hazeldine is definitely in the supporting category for season 2. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even though they don't list the principal cast in the opening credits, any single credits for most of the episodes end with Peter Mullan getting an "and" billing after everyone else was listed first. Should something like this be done for this page and the pages for the seasons? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
    It is unusual for TV, but a lot of films include "and" or "with" for significant cast members. It is not something that we usually include in our cast lists. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
    What would be the right resolve for the show's infobox then? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean by that. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
    You did take down the starring part of the infobox since they don't list the cast in the intro like they do with some of the shows. Perhaps we can re-add it to the cast list while the episode's cast list gets sorted in it's guest-starring section from those who are listed in the other grouping of the end credits. Wouldn't you agree? --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Are you saying we should add actors to the series/season infoboxes, or that we should add other actors back to the episode infoboxes? - adamstom97 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Add the principal actors to the series infobox and the season infoboxes as a way to sort them from everyone else. Any new principal actor can be added in to the main page as the series progresses. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    I would argue that there are too many to include in the infoboxes considering there are more than 20. I don't think there is a standard cut-off for cast members, but generally when a particular infobox field gets too long it is standard to leave them for the body of the article to explain (i.e. more than four or five editors). - adamstom97 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Eliminating opinionated bias

This show is the subject of much controversy, and as such, this page is plagued with edits made by people with ulterior motives and agendas. For example, stating "the second season met with lower viewership than the first season", without any citations. It is possible that many of these edits are done to manipulate and shift public opinion negatively to pressure Amazon into cancelling the show moving forward. Whether the statements made are positive or negative, they should be supplied with evidence in order to pass as facts. This way we can eliminate bias of any kind.

We need more citations to ensure no bias. Broad generalized statements like "low viewership and negative critical response" without citations is the same as saying "the show is crap, but I can't say that on wikipedia, so I'll say it in a way that it'll pass the site's rules". 49.47.1.90 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The sentence you have provided is from the lead. The lead does not require citation to be present when the content is already sourced within the article itself, per WP:CITELEAD. You can find the source for that particular statement under "Viewership". Everything in this article has been sourced properly. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power/Archive_10&oldid=1255612944"